MB, You are right. It just gets me so mad. One think that I point out to all my friends is that no matter which GOP gets the win we all need to vote this time even if the GOP is not the best pick. We do not want a Socialist in the White House. If a Democrat gets elected it will end all of our freedoms.

Trump is not an idoit , a self made billionaire , I’m sure he has some connections . He will dodge this bullet , and keep going how he is going . Bush and the other deadbeats with less than double digits need to drop out . The matter of Cruz not being natural born , needs to be settled , because as Trump said , the Dems plan to sue if he gets a nomination . As Trump explained , the issue is not 100 % legally clear in the courts .Cruz is also beholding to some banks , Goldman Sachs for one…..so he is already bought and paid for …………as Trump also pointed out .

Agree Tolik, Only the top 4 need to keep going, All the rest need to drop out. In the debates only the ones with 10% or more need to be there period. Cruz does need to clear up his problem in the courts.

Sorry, but I most strongly disagree. Top four on the basis of polls that are heavily influenced by the biased coverage on network TV? You’ve got to be kidding me! I actually wanted to watch the debate tonight, but had something very important come up that could not be done later. But my wife watched it, and told me that her perception was the Rand Paul got some of the loudest applause for some of his remarks, particularly his opening comments. Rand Paul, like him, not like him, or entirely neutral on him, has points of view NOT shared by any other candidate, and if nothing else, he will challenge them on things that need to be challenged. Why in the world should alternate voices NOT be heard, for just that reason?

Why should anyone want to allow the news media and questionable polling organizations, using even more questionable methods, PRE-select who the candidates will be in November? By cutting “certain” people out of debates, the debates narrow in focus, depth, and in many other ways, and do NOT represent what the American public needs to be hearing in order to make more informed votes. Why should we NOT hear all of the viewpoints, proposals, etc.? By the “top four” criteria, Ron Paul should never have been allowed in ANY of the debates in 2012, I suspect. Is that what we really want to say here? Again, agree with him or not, Ron Paul had some outstanding positions that would never have been heard had he not been there. I want to hear ALL angles of arguments, before making up my own mind. Hopefully I’m open minded enough to reconsider some previously held beliefs, based on new information, and even change my position when hopefully more fully enlightened on a subject. And thank goodness I’ve done that on multiple things in my lifetime.

What is popular now is clearly NOT what’s good for this country, and it is those very ideas that dictate the population’s selections as “top” candidates. So we can EXPECT the “top four” to reflect the beliefs of a relatively screwed up nation. Therefore, no – I do NOT want my choices artificially limited to what a few hundred people in a few polls have chosen for me.

[Note: I took an entire full semester course in survey research – “polling” basically – in college. Few people have any idea how easy it is to construct a biased poll and not even mean to do so. How much easier it is to intentionally create a biased poll, and pass it off as “accurate.” And that is done all the time. I want none of that as part of my decision-making process. I should not CARE who’s “top ranked” as I make my decisions, or else I’ve let others make them for me. Let me hear all voices up until the day I make MY choice.]
[soapbox/OFF]

GS
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."

I fear Trump is simply doing a sales job on the public. Mouthing the lines written on conservative websites like an actor auditioning for a part. I’m of the belief he has a mental health issue. I just don’t know which one. If he is elected don’t expect him to to anything he said.

Mental health issue? When most people hear that term, they tend to think some varying degree of “crazy.” My bet is that it would fall in the realm of what’s commonly known as a personality disorder, if it rises to that level. Those folks can think VERY clearly, and are often of above average intelligence. That they don’t come to the same conclusions most people would is true, but do they understand what other people are saying and what they see in front of them with their eyes? Yes. No hallucinations, no voices in their heads, nothing like that. They can be very cold and calculating, intellectually know that they’re causing pain for other people (emotional or physical), but they simply don’t care. Their two primary emotions are generally personal pleasure of some sort, and anger. If someone close to them dies, the apparent grief is of a character much different than so-called “normal” (whatever that is) people. It’s all about them, and their loss, not just the natural, understandable inner aching when someone important to them is suddenly gone – a subtle difference perhaps on the surface, but the better you understand it, it’s very, very different than most people’s grief. And if they can blame somebody else? Look out!

I suspect our current commander-in-chief falls squarely in that category. And I suspect Trump does also. They know how to use people for their own pleasure and gain, and toss them aside when they’re no longer useful. And if you cross people of their types, it can become extremely dangerous.

So – does Trump know exactly what he’s doing? No question. Does he have all kinds of connections, and all kinds of inside information? No doubt – he’s got the money and the history to prove he’s very expert at that sort of thing. Could we use someone like that in the White House? No – because it would not be for the good of the country, unless that was just a side benefit, or a temporary one that made him look good so he could further his OWN agenda. Crazy like a fox is the old saying.

GS
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."

Freedom, as to your “top four only” comment, I note that you entirely sidestepped the response when it didn’t agree with you. I decided to watch Fox News for a little while this morning, because I figured they’d be the most likely to talk about their own debate in some detail. They sure did. What did I hear for almost ½ hour before I realized I was entirely wasting my time? Trump was gone, followed by Rubio, Cruz, Rubio, Cruz, Rubio, Trump was gone, Cruz, Rubio, …. What what about Rubio, Cruz? NOT issues, but how they tried to appeal to Iowa voters, how Rubio went after the Evangelical vote, etc., etc. And Trump wasn’t there.

Then they brought on their token Liberal NPR cast-off, Juan Williams, alone with Mary Catherine Ham for their comments. Williams immediately mentioned some guy you’d never guess was even a candidate, based on the earlier yak-yak-talk-talk – Rand Paul. Williams said he made some excellent points, and had some very positive things to say about him – in the 30 seconds or so that was allotted to Fox’s token liberal. End of discussion about Rand Paul. No clips of what he actually said that Williams was referring to, nothing. Cue the few other comments about Christie, Bush, Kasich, etc., with plenty of other comments about the man that wasn’t even there at the debate. Was that a representative ½ hour of Fox’s programming this morning? I have no idea. It most certainly wasn’t “fair” OR “balanced.” And unlike national poll samples, I got enough data to form a reasonable opinion – I figure that in half of one full hour, if that’s all they would include, they represented themselves quite adequately.

USA Today has a recap of the debate with fact-checking. Christie is mentioned twice in the entire article: once in the lineup listing, and then a very brief comment about his jobs creation claim in NJ. Rand Paul was mentioned exactly once – in the lineup listing. Talk about the man that wasn’t there!

You’re having a media complex shape our opinions about who is even worth discussing, then pushing the non-“chosen ones” off stage (literally in the previous debate for Paul), then marginalizing them with the debate questions and discussions, followed by the final whitewashing the next morning when all we hear about is Cruz, Rubio, Cruz, Rubio, and token brief but inconsequential mentions of anyone else, NOT including their policy positions.

So go ahead with your media-selected “top four.” Hope you’re happy with what you get. If the most important take-away from all that is that Donald Trump was “smart enough” to smell a rat (or wealthy enough to have bought up enough insiders to keep him advised of Fox’s plans to embarrass him), then we’re in real trouble.

GS
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."

If you look at it ……….we ALL have a personality disorder , and we ALL are ‘ mentally ill ” , its a label too heavily used today to describe people who are simply being themselves . Nothing wrong with these people in actual reality . The term and definitions of it are today , engineered to fuel the system , they diagnose a person in order to sell counseling , therapy , and above all , prescription drugs . More often than not . I would use the term Personality , and ignore the label of disorder . I myself dont want to live in a world where everybody has a cookie cutter personality and disposition , a world which modern psychology and governments are attempting to create , through fear , intimidation , and propaganda . Best way to control the masses , drug them and give anything other than the party line a stigma . Think about it , there are those that describe people that believe in god as ‘ mentally ill ‘ and under dilution , and in need of medical ” treatment ” . Conspiracy plot ? I dont think so , too much money being made , and too great an opportunity to control others , by those with ill intent .

GS, When I say the top four, it is the top four on all the polls. I still have not made up my mind to who I will vote for so I am not sure what you mean.

What I do know is that there is not one in the GOP that is 100% right on everything they say. All have something in there pass but I will be voting for the GOP because I do not want a Socialist like the one in the White House right now.

The problem I see with the GOP is we better pick a lion for the debates against the Democrats so we can win, if not we can say for sure America will be lost into Socialism.

Right now I see Trump as the one most likely to represent the interests of the people. Clinton’s objective other than raw power is $ plain and simple. She and Bill have done everything they can since leaving office, much of it likely illegal, to make themselves fabulously wealthy. Her goal no doubt is to go into office a mega millionaire and leave 4 years later a billionaire because everything is for sale with her. Trump is so rich he doesn’t need to sell his principals and he’s already a pretty powerful guy even without running for office. Except for Jeb and Bernie, the rest are looking for power and $ too. Jeb thinks he’s entitled to it because he’s a Bush. Bernie really does believe the stuff he says and thinks he’s the one to save us from ourselves.

Tolik, I suppose my current (non-cookie cutter) mood is showing through here, but I’m just going to say it anyway. It’s always a good idea to know enough about what you’re talking about before expounding in detail – unless it’s liberally sprinkled with sufficient tentative statements, disclaimers about not knowing all the facts, etc. Anybody’s entitled to an opinion, it’s just wise to not state one as if it’s fact, without having sufficient knowledge to back it up.

There’s a huge difference between what’s called “traits” and what finally qualifies as a disorder. Yes, EVERYONE can find certain personal “traits” that show up as pieces of all sorts of disorders, syndromes, etc. That does not make them mentally ill, and in fact IS what keeps us all from having cookie cutter personalities and dispositions.

To qualify for a personality disorder label, one must go FAR beyond what’s considered a normal range of personality variation. One can exhibit many of the traits of a disorder, and still not qualify for having the label applied to him/her. Sadly, people go on the internet and read articles about the various versions of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) – now up to DSM-5, after a long reigning DSM-IV (they even did away with Roman numerals this time – WHEE!). They read through short, shaded sections in each diagnosis, “see” various “traits” in individuals they know or live with, and then apply the label, CERTAIN they’re right, because they “read it in the DSM-whateverversion.” Even according to the DSM, in a statement right in the front, it is NEVER to be used in cookbook fashion, nor should it be used by any that are not significantly educated and experienced in the mental health field.

Is it misused within the professions? Absolutely. For many of the reasons you mentioned? No question. But to dismiss the severity of those that cross over the line and are legitimately diagnosable as a personality disorder, is to terribly misunderstand (and therefore dangerously underestimate) some people. And they can be so very, very charming and believable. Am I qualified to diagnose Obama or Trump? Absolutely not – because I have never met either one, let alone interviewed them. But have I drawn strong tentative conclusions based on many observed behaviors and statements out of their mouths? Yep! And those two scare me – Obama even more than Trump. Trump is at least out for his own gain, and likely has no agenda to specifically dismantle the constitutional republic. Obama? I’ve already given my belief about his agenda. But yes, there is a massive difference between personality traits (which we all have in varying degrees), and full blown, diagnosable personality disorders. To dismiss the difference is to seriously underestimate the negative potential of certain individuals.

GS
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."

MountainBiker, I am looking at this from the outside. Jeb doesn’t have a chance because of his last name Bush with the Independent voters which are the voters that tip to one side or the other.

Trump does poll very good with the Independent vote. I am all about voting for the GOP that would have a chance to win since we do not have a choice but to win this time around. A Bernie win would end all of the freedoms we all love.

I believe that all of us will know who is the front runner by the end of March and for me who ever he or she is I will back this pick and vote for them. I will never vote for Socialism/Communist Democrat and anyone(GOP) is better.

We all need to do vote this time even if he or she is not the best pick.